The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='10 June 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1276202471' post='2332013']
Except they haven't acted honorably. They've said "Unconditional surrender or war forever". Anything short of IRON agreeing to become slaves of Gramlins means the war continues.[/quote]

IRON Surrendering cannot be construed to them becoming our slaves, no matter how often you repeat it.
We have demanded nothing more than that IRON surrender without placing conditions on the terms we can offer.

[quote]That's not honorable, it's not smart, and it's why the vast majority disagree with Gramlins.[/quote]

:yawn:



[quote]IRON has been doing nothing? IRON has been bringing Gramlins down a few nations at a time. Look at the Gramlins chart, and it's a very steady decline. That's not exactly "doing nothing".
[/quote]

You and I and IRON all know that IRON gets minimal credit for that.
In fact, the basis for the anti-GRE argument recently has been that our nations are leaving and deleting because they hate our tyrannical leaders... not because they're ss-s-s-s-scared of IRON.

Try and keep up with whatever angle is being tried against us (again, and to little avail)

[Sandwich Controversy]

Yo IRON, it's about time that you offer Gre terms, I think.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 June 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1276229781' post='2332808']
IRON Surrendering cannot be construed to them becoming our slaves, no matter how often you repeat it.
We have demanded nothing more than that IRON surrender without placing conditions on the terms we can offer.[/quote]

Right. They have to surrender, and then do whatever you say or go back to war.

That's slavery.

[quote]You and I and IRON all know that IRON gets minimal credit for that.
In fact, the basis for the anti-GRE argument recently has been that our nations are leaving and deleting because they hate our tyrannical leaders... not because they're ss-s-s-s-scared of IRON.[/quote]

You drop about 10k NS every day due to nukes from IRON/DAWN. Your chart isn't level, with occasional drops from nations leaving - it's a very steady progression downward.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='flak attack' date='10 June 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1276195535' post='2331887']
Yes, he can fight for quite some time, but he can only do so much to hurt Gre's top end.




Yes, in fact I would have.

If IRON had actually done something when they had CT this would be finishing up by now. 2 rounds of wars would have put all but blackdigital in range of those 70k ns guys, when it would be game over for Gre.

I suppose it is true that fortune favors the bold.
[/quote]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='10 June 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1276197209' post='2331907']
No
I'd have had him hit people in his range who actually matter rather than 2 comparative non entities
[/quote]

The armchair quarterbacking going on throughout this thread really seems like people trying to goad IRON into abandoning a defense strategy that is working. I don't think its a coincidence that nearly everyone criticizing IRONs actions in this conflict would take pleasure in seeing them fall to the Gramlins assault.

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='10 June 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1276198032' post='2331931']
I'd say the moral is don't count on CT if you plan to fight a war, he has a history of running away.
[/quote]

I haven't known CT for very long but the short time I have known him I'll say that my impression of him is substantially different. He seems to be the type to run to war if he believes in the cause. I wish him well and if he decides to come back to IRON I would personally welcome him and if he doesn't I wish him the best of luck.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 June 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1276229589' post='2332798']
So can we, so.... a long drawn out war then?
Pretty much the same thing as before?

It will be fun to get to war with you again though
[/quote]

Anyone that hits Matt in my range should plan on fighting both of us. If you have a problem with IRON attacks on Gramlins then you only have to accept the offers of white peace that are still on the table. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Edited June 11, 2010 by JimKongIl

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 June 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1276200176' post='2331968']
Your position seems predicated on the false notion that apologizing and admitting culpability are mutually inclusive.
In your scenario, what would it matter that IRON apologize (when they have demonstrated clearly that they are not "sorry" in any non-strategic sense)?

On the other hand, it's completely possible for one to be liable and [b]not[/b] sorry.

Distinctions!

As above, my understanding is that IRON offered an apology.
[/quote]


MPK, you who preaches about distinctions and claims that an apology and admitting wrong are not mutually inclusive.. Have you read the definition of apology.. ever?


[quote]a·pol·o·gy
   /əˈpɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled[uh-pol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -gies.
1.
a written or spoken expression of one's [b]regret, remorse,[/b] or sorrow [b]for having[/b] insulted, failed, injured, or [b]wronged another[/b][/quote]


Here is a second definition for you.

[quote]a·pol·o·gy (ə-pŏl'ə-jē)
n. pl. a·pol·o·gies

1. An [b]acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense[/b].[/quote]

I bolded the important parts of those two definitions for you. These definitions claim that an apology is an expression of regret for a wrongdoing.

"Regret" means we are sorry. The fact that we apologized means that we were sorry for an admitted wrongdoing. Are we still using the definitions from MPK's Dictionary to define the english language or can we go back to the more widely accepted Webster's Dictionary definitions? It appears that apologizing is admitting wrong and being sorry for it.


[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='11 June 2010 - 05:20 AM]

Yo IRON, it's about time that you offer Gre terms, I think.[/quote]

Our terms have been on the table for weeks. Only step missing is GRE doing something they haven't done in awhile (aka: see reason) and accept them.

Edited June 11, 2010 by The Warrior

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 June 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1276229781' post='2332808']
We have demanded nothing more than that IRON surrender without placing conditions on the terms we can offer.
[/quote]

Do you realize how retarded that sounds? Honestly. Especially after all this time.

Does the knowledge that if you pulled your head out of your $@! and bothered to ask for terms months ago you would have had both an intact alliance and a reputation, keep you up at night?

Its your sheer stupidity, sheer idiocy, that keeps this going and your alliance on a death ride. This goes beyond mere incompetence and ventures deep into the realm of mental retardation.

Placing conditions on the terms you can offer? Your own blind arrogance has insured that the only thing you can offer is white peace. You've done more to limit the terms you could offer than anyone else by far. Had you bothered to ask for something sane you could have gotten it on the ESA.

Instead you've chosen to let your alliance crumble to a pathetic shell of itself while simultaneously killing your own reputation. We named the whole damn BiPolar war over the crazy antics of Polaris, but next to you they are paragons of sanity.

[quote]
You and I and IRON all know that IRON gets minimal credit for that.
In fact, the basis for the anti-GRE argument recently has been that our nations are leaving and deleting because they hate our tyrannical leaders... not because they're ss-s-s-s-scared of IRON.
[/quote]

You are letting your ego run away with you again. Were IRON's military efforts truely worthless you'd have a flat NS graph expect for deletions. Since we know you aren't losing member's daily (anymore!) its quite easy to see what is lost to defections as your membership wakes up to the fact that its leaders are bat !@#$ nuts and what is military damage. If anyone is not getting due credit for their efforts its DAWN.

The basis of the argument pointing at your unprecedented defection level is an attempt to point to an example that might be capable of piercing the only superior thing left about Gre. Your Ego's.

To put it quite simply, when that many of your members bail in short order;

You are doing it wrong.


[quote]
Try and keep up with whatever angle is being tried against us (again, and to little avail)
[/quote]

Its not being tried, it worked, your alliance is a pathetic remanant of what was once a powerhouse. You've also taken a high respected public image and trashed it completely, you are the least popular alliance at the moment. Even your last remaining ally is publicly lamenting the fact that they can't cancel on you (yes I'm aware they aren't government).

Meanwhile, you've managed to through sheer stupidity turn a won war into a losing conflict, while simultaneously preforming the exact opposite of your desired goals. While seeking to punish IRON for perceived wrongdoing you've managed to spoon feed them a metric $@! ton of positive PR, and change them from the bad guys in a preemptive strike attempt to a sympathetic character.

Congrats on improving IRONS public image while murdering your own while on an idiotic crusade to attempt to impose your own moral standard on others at the tail end of a war started over resistance to people imposing moral standards on others!

The level of blindness you've shown in all categories, military, political, reality itself, is so staggering it reaches levels of scientific curiosity. I think there might be a singularity involved. Its the only way I can explain the density of fail embodied in (whats left of) your alliance.


[quote name='The Warrior' date='11 June 2010 - 02:39 AM' timestamp='1276238326' post='2333008']
Our terms have been on the table for weeks. Only step missing is GRE doing something they haven't done in awhile (aka: see reason) and accept them.
[/quote]

Months actually. But your point remains unchanged.

Edited June 11, 2010 by TypoNinja

[flak attack]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 June 2010 - 12:13 AM' timestamp='1276229589' post='2332798']
It will be fun to get to war with you again though
[/quote]
tbh, I feel more cheated out of this than anything. Matt was just above my range when this while thing ended. I was hoping to get to declare on two formerly number one nations.

[amad123]

As the official spokesperson for Gre, Matthew would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to how you think this war will conclude? I think it is pretty clear to most competent rulers on Planet Bob how this will end, I just wonder if your fearless leader has accepted your fate or whether the prevailing thought is still that IRON will eventually surrender. Let's face it they aren't going to, and it must be very depressing to see all that you've worked for be destroyed.

Perhaps your leader may come to his senses after he has been a war for several rounds. He is next on the hit list, I was hoping Matt Miller would hit him and fill his third slot but I suppose Ram will get special attention. After Ram there are only two nations between him and you so I predict you will be at war before the end of the summer. I do hope the war lasts long enough and that I am privileged enough to obtain a slot on both of you as you pass through my strength range.

[Matt Miller]

The two I hit at least have a sporting chance as you'll notice I have nobody with me against them.

[quote name='amad123' date='11 June 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1276266786' post='2333239']
I was hoping Matt Miller would hit him and fill his third slot but I suppose Ram will get special attention.[/quote]

The words mano a mano come to mind.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='10 June 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1276208418' post='2332198']
You still not have picked our strategy in ~2 months?

Sometimes I wonder if the display of irrationality is genuine or is it deliberate...e.g. We had one Gre nation spend 100s of million of his warchest..in 10? days....on buying tech directly himself, no aid slots .
[/quote]
Who was [i]that[/i]?

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Is any GRE nation going to attack Matt Miller?

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='11 June 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1276271309' post='2333305']
Who was [i]that[/i]?
[/quote]

Toranaga of Slaughterhouse bought from ~3500 to ~4000 tech twice in the last month. Question, what's worse, that or Marc Aurel and other Gramlins failing literally 40+ spy attempts to destroy my HNMS protected nukes during Karma and the war that ended with the signing of the ESA? I got quite the chuckle out of both.



[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' date='11 June 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1276271821' post='2333310']
Is any GRE nation going to attack Matt Miller?
[/quote]
One of the four that can is reading this thread right now. I'm sure he'll wait for my nuke stockpile and tech level to drop a bit before joining the fun.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

More power to you Matt Miller. I have mad respect for you.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 June 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1276229781' post='2332808'][...]
We have demanded nothing more than that IRON surrender without placing conditions on the terms we can offer.
[...]
You and I and IRON all know that IRON gets minimal credit for that.
In fact, the basis for the anti-GRE argument recently has been that our nations are leaving and deleting because they hate our tyrannical leaders... not because they're ss-s-s-s-scared of IRON.[/quote]
First. Whyyyyy should IRON surrender to you? For what possible reason? Especially under such silly conditions. Since IRON is winning this war - perhaps you should consider surrendering to them? Seeing as how you're losing?

Second. The basis for the ever-growing anti-Gre sentiment around SE is that Gremlins are doing it wrong. Y'all are demanding an alliance surrender that's pretty much kicking your stupid butt. You are offering stupid conditions that will NEVER be accepted. There's really a lot of stupid going on over there. See, nations leaving or deleting, all that counts too. Everything that affects the ever-dropping ns of Gremlins counts.

Some pertinent stats:

[i]Current Detailed Alliance Statistics:[/i]

[url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=The%20Gr%E4mlins"]The Grämlins[/url], 6/11/2010 1:03:36 PM: 1,500,987ns. From 5/12: Around 2,100,000ns.
1,500,987 - 2,100,000 = - 599,013

[url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=Independent%20Republic%20Of%20Orange%20Nations"]IRON[/url], 6/11/2010 1:06:37 PM: 4,826,891ns. From 5/12: Around 4,260,000ns.
4,826,891 - 4,260,000 = + 566,891

Going very nearly the same distance - in opposite directions.
Explain me again why IRON should surrender to Gre?
It's a stupid thing to even ask at this point.

-

I suspect this war is the best thing that ever happened to alliances like GGA, who are stereotyped (fairly or unfairly, usually both) as being inept and incompetent. The Gre has officially replaced them as CN's inept idols. Thus let's try something out.

lolGre

Ohhh doesn't that look good? It even felt good to type.
The best part? It's the truth.
lolGre if you're down with lolGre!

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Clash' date='11 June 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1276280313' post='2333443']
First. Whyyyyy should IRON surrender to you? For what possible reason? Especially under such silly conditions. Since IRON is winning this war - perhaps you should consider surrendering to them? Seeing as how you're losing? [/quote]

The current backroom spin from the Gre camp is that IRON's surrender, should it happen, would be more meaningful and sincere since Gre is no longer in a position to force it. At least that's the current line last I heard. To be fair to Gre, it's the only position they can take that doesn't make them look silly at this point.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='11 June 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1276280728' post='2333458']
The current backroom spin from the Gre camp is that IRON's surrender, should it happen, would be more meaningful and sincere since Gre is no longer in a position to force it. At least that's the current line last I heard. To be fair to Gre, it's the only position they can take that doesn't make them look silly at this point.[/quote]
Meaningful. Sincere. Oh. Well, I suspect that this wishful thinking is silly unto itself.
Sometimes miracles happen! ...IRON surrendering in this case tho?
Not so much.

I demand a pony from Gre immediately.
Cause it makes just as much sense

Edit: lolGre

Edited June 11, 2010 by Clash

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='10 June 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1276238326' post='2333008']
MPK, you who preaches about distinctions and claims that an apology and admitting wrong are not mutually inclusive.. Have you read the definition of apology.. ever?





Here is a second definition for you.



I bolded the important parts of those two definitions for you. These definitions claim that an apology is an expression of regret for a wrongdoing.

"Regret" means we are sorry. The fact that we apologized means that we were sorry for an admitted wrongdoing. Are we still using the definitions from MPK's Dictionary to define the english language or can we go back to the more widely accepted Webster's Dictionary definitions? It appears that apologizing is admitting wrong and being sorry for it.




Our terms have been on the table for weeks. Only step missing is GRE doing something they haven't done in awhile (aka: see reason) and accept them.
[/quote]


Thank you for highlighting my point.

Per your definition: an apology implies sorrow or remorse for actions.

One can certainly acknowledge their liability for an action without feeling any remorse for having comitted the action.
This is, in fact, a large basis for why it's ridiculous to "force" apologies; and why I think the fact that IRON offered an apology during ESA is irrelevant. Sincerety is more open for speculation proportional to duress.

You could make the case that an apology is inclusive of an admission of liability, but there is no inherently reverse correlation. Do you see?

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 June 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1276283656' post='2333503']Per your definition: an apology implies sorrow or remorse for actions.

One can certainly acknowledge their liability for an action without feeling any remorse for having comitted the action.
This is, in fact, a large basis for why it's ridiculous to "force" apologies; and why I think the fact that IRON offered an apology during ESA is irrelevant. Sincerety is more open for speculation proportional to duress.

You could make the case that an apology is inclusive of an admission of liability, but there is no inherently reverse correlation. Do you see?[/quote]
Whyyyy would IRON owe Gre an apology? For WHAT!?!
Where is my pony.

lololGre

[Screwball]

[quote=Matt Miller]To be fair to Gre, it's the only position they can take that doesn't make them look silly at this point.[/quote]

I disagree. It still makes them look silly.

[SynthFG]

There is no position that Gre can take at this point that is any more or less retarded than the one they hold now
Gre are dead as an alliance yet alone any kind of power in this world thanks to there current actions,

[franciscus]

[quote name='Clash' date='11 June 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1276281154' post='2333469']
I demand a pony from Gre immediately.

[/quote]
I stick to my demand of a shrubbery.

In all seriousness, MPK, you seem to be an intelligent individual. I mean, attempting to defend an indefensible position such as the one your alliance has for so long and through so many posts certainly requires an amount of grey matter. Are you trying to say that IRON was "forced" to offer an apology through the ESA peace talks or you've lost yourself in your own arguments? Man, sit down, take a deep breath and come up with a better excuse or simply ignore this argument, because you look inept. The only ones who would have been forced to offer an apology, not to those who have been attacked, but to Gre, was DAWN. That's why you won't see us complaining about this war still going. Were we scandalized, appalled, shocked, intrigued or w/e about Gre taking their own terms off the table after them being accepted and the way this happened? Yes. Sad, worried or displeased? Hell, no.
Would we have offered Gre some apologies as part of terms? Yes. Honest? Most probably not.
Have we offered an apology to CnG? Yes. Honest? Most probably yes. Did they care about them? Hell no. You see, unlike your's, CnG leaders actually knew what a preemptive attack means and understood why our attack targeted them, all propaganda aside. They'd've probably done the same, if situations were reversed. Or maybe not, but a preemptive strike still has its strategical value. One that your dear leader either never heard about or thought nobody else heard off and such he could reap some more PR points by attempting to humiliate two alliances. Isn't life a !@#$%*? Go figure, in this world, there are more than just a handful of rulers with working neurons between their ears. And Gre is in an impossible position. You can no longer impose your terms, you know damn well they'd never be accepted, not even out of pity and yet you can't go back on your word because you'd lose the only thing left for you: your e-!@#$%*.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='11 June 2010 - 09:20 AM' timestamp='1276230002' post='2332819']
Yo IRON, it's about time that you offer Gre terms, I think.
[/quote]

Offer of white peace remains

[FlogYou]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='10 June 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1276230002' post='2332819']
Yo IRON, it's about time that you offer Gre terms, I think.
[/quote]


They have offered white peace to gRAMlins well over a month ago, have been steadfast in their commitment to white peace.

The ball is completely in Rams court, and it looks like he got hungry and ate it.

[brickyard]

Instead of white peace, I say we offer them more nooks.

And a second helping of Matt Miller

[Sandwich Controversy]

Pffft white peace. You could easily force terms.